Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 23, 2014 1:30pm-2:01pm PDT

1:30 pm
and personnel changes. i arrived here over 7 years ago at the admiring stage needs have shifted and lots of forces of change we're trying to be mindful and a of and deliver the project as envisioned and scheduled and we're balancing those out and again going back to strategically setting up so we can try to manage them one bite at that time, >> any questions. if not thank you for moving us into the transition phase along with the building itself. we appreciate your update weighing we'll look forward to the next one >> item 10 is the human
1:31 pm
resources update. >> good evening, commissioners thank you for letting me me take time to talk about human resources and hiring. i came on january 7th and told you will be the system some of the challenges we face i'm come back to check with you and come back for information on the advance. i made concessions with the unions local 21 the nurses and
1:32 pm
today s c i you misdemeanors groups they like to see us moving forward with the hiring and lots of good ideas and pinup ideas this is generally our mission statement within human resources we're going to support the department to make the operations run better and keep the staff up to provide services. just quickly i went over this in january why the process t is complicated the biggest reason we have the civil service commission we have 22 series to make sure we follow the rules and steps. that was created by the voters long, long ago and it's an
1:33 pm
independent entity which the mayor is to stay out of and the county human resources division is responsible for carrying out the policies. we have the state personnel system we get money from the state so the state feels american people obligation to keep an eye on our merit to make sure we're doing it properly. in fact, the system was behind the rule of the list we use a list and the personnel system required the city to stop doing that. we have our own internal policies. just briefly i want to talk about in the spring of 2013 it mocked up the guarantee first, we had the deficit we were
1:34 pm
installed and at the same time the merit section went down to a staff of one. we have 75 hundred employees and a turnover of 10 percent and have to do examines we can't have one person doing the examines. we had an ash tradition sdlement the union required us to hire employees we had to hire them permanently a it detailed the hiring process and then no more turnover it means their leaving at the same pace we're bringing them in we're fixing that we've moved the merit section to building and gone from one person to 3 one we hired monday
1:35 pm
and two weeks before that and a manager. we're partnering with the county and doing training and assisting us where our examines so we can catch up on the examines exams we're asking the county to do a pilot project see if we can get the hiring down to 90 days. other things planned next week weeping we'll be working to strategically schedule our exams that means wherever we're getting the most heating heat we're going to look at the operation sections and figure out how to do the exams on an
1:36 pm
operational basis. we're also hiring two operational managers they're responsible for the on board staff we're going to have a testing center which the city and county have created that have interviewing rooms to speed up the step forward process. i've askedism is there anything we can do what we all want is something like that this right how do we get from here to here. in addition to the things we're doing i know it would be very helpful if we could do a value streaming mapping progress i've been attending at the san francisco general and the theatres their high energy and a lot of positive energy it happens that sf i u are our
1:37 pm
largest classification of over one thousand staff maybe we can do a pilot project i think that's something we modesty be able to do soon to fight the bureaucracy that's where we're headed to see if we can't streamline this. i made a presentation at the jc c if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. questions yes >> commissioners he promised 90 days so commissioner. >> i worry about i had information of the people who were hired at the same time people left. >> the turnover is 10 percent
1:38 pm
so roughly close. >> so question. the other question is why was the - did we stop the rule of the list for hiring >> because the state department of personnel came in and did an audit of municipalities and said since you're getting state funding we want to make sure your you're going the merit processes and they pointed at the list that's where you're giving our manager a great list and not distinguishing between two and three. >> the rule of the list requires you to hire one of the top two or three people. >> we give you a giant list the way they want is the rule of 3
1:39 pm
or 10, in fact, the s c i u agreed to a list of 12 classics they'll let us do the rule of strength it's good. >> the last thing i know in the city we've had very little in the form of aside from people being promoted through the merit system there's very this incentives that have been put in place for good employees to be revoked throughout and i'm wondering if we're doing anything between the department of public health department to prevent people from leaving we spend money on them by training them it would be great to figure out a way to keep them. >> we're working with the
1:40 pm
director and, of course, the recognition of length of service and those with regards when you do the with regards once a year we're doing more of that. we formed a committee jonathan and the workforce development committee and that might be looking at the recognition. we can look at that >> okay. thanks. >> further comments from commissions. >> we thank you for your no day analysis and look forward to hearing the results of moving the abate out of bureaucracy. >> all right. i'll be back. >> thank you. >> i note there's no request for public comment. >> we move to item 11 any other bus. >> commissioners any other
1:41 pm
business you want to bring to us if not we'll go on. >> the next item is the joint office convention committee and they didn't meet. >> oh, yes, sir. the committee on march 11 is that - okay. the quality measure update and i and more importantly from our standpoint we got an update on the joint surveys the response from the hospital and more importantly letters from c.m.s. and said they accepted the program and we're no longer on their watch list and there will be no more monitoring so we can continue to take care of our federally
1:42 pm
funded patients. they accepted the corrected plan both plans were rectified chauflly with the committee and that joint commission has also accepted that as a corrective action plan they'll continue to monitor normally so we'll be maintaining our accreditation through the period of time to we're expecting is on site accreditation survey that is our normal survey cycle of every 3 years at sometime during this year i don't know if my colleague has anything to add and in our closed session we approved our criminals commissioner sanchez anything to add. many questions from
1:43 pm
commissioners. if not we'll go on >> i'll note we didn't receive any public comment on that item and the item 13 is the committee agenda setting. >> okay. the only setting we have right now is we'll look at the committee assignments and hope everybody will like to continue to work within the areas they're interested in and also have developed an expertise. we'll ask that you respond to mark so we can looked at that in the next several weeks to have assignments for our staff to work with in the coming month. okay. so i appreciate your response to that. is there any public comment on that >> no. there's no public comment. >> okay. so we're at the last item and
1:44 pm
adjournment is item 14 >> is there a motion for adjournment all in favor. i. any nays? we're adjourned
1:45 pm
gulf of mexico welcome to our rule committee meeting for thursday, march 20th, 2014. i am supervisor nor nan man yee and i will be chairing this meeting. i am joined by supervisor david campos and supervisor katy tang and also supervisor wiener will be joining the committee today. the clerk today is alisa miller. the committee would also like to acknowledge the staff sfgtv, jesse larson and john ross who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the april 1st board
1:46 pm
of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> okay. thank you. so, madam clerk, i would like to call an item out of order. can you please call item number 7? >> item number 7 is a resolution referring the initiative measure known as the waterfront height limit initiative. [speaker not understood] potential impacts if passed. >> okay. so, we have supervisor wiener here today and he's the author of this resolution. i would like to turn it over to him. ~ >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for calling this out of order. colleagues, i recently introduced this resolution seeking analysis from various city departments about a number of questions or potential impacts of this measure if it were to pass as authorized by the state elections code, but also as authorized generally
1:47 pm
[speaker not understood] from the city attorney's office, this type of analysis is permissible and we are able to request it. so, that resolution is before us today. i have been informed by the mayor's office that mayor lee will be issuing a directive to the departments to engage in the requested analysis as a result, i believe this resolution is now moot and i intend to withdraw it. i request that the committee table it. >> okay, thank you, supervisor wiener. any comments? supervisor campos. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for putting this item on the agenda. and i just had a quick question in terms of the mayor's office. do you know if -- what the analysis will focus on? is it exactly the language that's in the resolution? through the chair.
1:48 pm
>> that is my understanding, but mr. elliott from the mayor's office is here and i don't want to speak for the mayor. >> thank you, jason from the mayor's office, mr. chairman, supervisors. the mayor is working with the department heads to perform analysis, whatever analysis will be relevant. i have already asked the city attorney and will intend to ask the city attorney again to recirculate a memo entitled political activity by city officers and employees dated september 3rd, 2013. if i may just read one sentence because i think it serves as a helpful reminder. city this is on page 3. city officers and employees may lawfully use city resources [speaker not understood] potential impact of a ballot measure on city operations. the analysis must be made available to the public. so, i think that's a helpful
1:49 pm
reminder to city departments it will be performing this analysis. >> if i may. some of the questions that were included in this request were drafted by people that had taken a position against the measure. and will there be an opportunity for people who may have a different perspective to, you know, request that perhaps other information be considered? >> most certainly, i think requests for information are always, always helpful. and the more information, the better. again, we will be leaving this to the impacted or subject area departments to scope that analysis and to perform it in a way that conforms with this political activities memo, not making the case one way or another, because facts can be malleable, but in fact presenting the most impartial -- presenting the most impartial case possible. >> what i would say is, you know, i appreciate that and i think i would encourage anyone who feels that there are
1:50 pm
specific issues or questions that should be looked into, that they contact the mayor's office. and i appreciate supervisor wiener withdrawing this item. i have to say that i still have questions about the item in the sense that i don't know if this is necessarily the best precedent in terms of, you know, using city resources for this purpose, whether it's for or against something. and, you know, that is not really going to be voted on so it doesn't really matter, but i do have that concern because i think that the way in which to, you know, campaign for or against something is to use, you know, private resources to make that happen. and i just have a concern about using city resources for that purpose, and i'm not sure
1:51 pm
that's necessarily a good precedent, but, you know, that's something that could be done. so, thank you. >> mr. chairman, may i? >> sure. supervisor wiener. >> so, thank you, mr. elliott, and to supervisor campos, for those comments. just a couple things. first of all, from what i understand, the mayor's request will be along the lines of this resolution, and similar in other ways as well. first, as i stated at the last -- at the board meeting when i introduced it, i publicly invited anyone who had additional questions if they wanted included to put them forward. and is as i indicated at that board meeting, that i had no problem adding additional questions because the more information, the better. i have not received any, and i presume that additional questions could be forwarded to the mayor as well. when it comes to posing
1:52 pm
questions, the more the morier, and the more questions, the more information we get. ~ merrier. and we made clear in the resolution, and i know the mayor made clear the same thing, that this is to be done in a -- an analytical way in terms of producing information that the departments are not to take a position or suggest amendments to the ballot measure. and that was in the resolution, and the mayor has reiterated that. in terms of a precedent -- and i did talk about this when i introduced it -- that in 1996 then supervisor ammiano made a request about the then pending giants stadium measure and actually held a hearing on it i believe a month before that election. that request by then supervisor ammiano was totally appropriate and it was a good idea, and it appears to have produced very
1:53 pm
useful information for the public. and, so, it's good that he did it, but this does not set any precedent. this is something that has been done in san francisco for a long time ~ and it is completely and entirely appropriate. and then in terms of the drafting of this, this resolution has my name on it and we submitted this resolution and, supervisor campos, i'm sure you, as do we all, we work with various people in preparing legislation, preparing resolutions, and that is exactly what legislators should be doing. we don't live kilos at thereded in a tower. we work from folks all over the community to put things together. and, so, thank you very much. ~ cloistered. >> is that it? >> i can i think we should get input from people in the community.
1:54 pm
the difference is the extent you're asking for a political analysis of a political measure. i think the same level of input should be provided to each side. and i don't know that that necessarily happened here. >> my comment along this, if there are advocates out there or individuals that would like to have more information, when i heard the representative [speaker not understood] jason elliott said they're welcome to row vied that. i would also appreciate if there are people that want additional information and requesting the mayor to do so ~ they would give me some notice also so i could keep track of it. ~ provide since this -- the author is withdrawing, i still need to take public comment. public comments, i have two people.
1:55 pm
ellen book en and pat valentino. you have two minutes. two minutes? minutes? >> yes. >> okay, eileen boken, district resident, [speaker not understood], committee is tabling it. [speaker not understood] by hans christian anderson. and i will quote from that. many years ago the emperor so exceedingly fond of his clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. in a great city where he lived [speaker not understood] many strangers came and one day there were two swindlers. [speaker not understood], but the clothes made of this cloth made a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for office unusually stewvth it. ~ stoup it. ~ stupid. he said he wanted them. when the emperor went to see the cloth for himself, he he
1:56 pm
said, what is this, i can't see anything. i'm a fool, unfit to be an emperor. what has happened to all the people? with his whole receipt knew, he said everything was wonderful ~, he agreed and he went on procession through the town. and everyone in the town said the street -- the clothes were wonderful. nobody could confess that they couldn't see him because they would be proven unfit for office or a fool. but he hadn't done anything wrong, a little child said. did he hear that innocent [speaker not understood] the father said? the one person whispered to another what the child had said. he hasn't done anything wrong. the child, says he hasn't anything on. but he hasn't got anything on. the whole town cried at last, unquote, the emperor has no clothes. if this would be an objective analysis, i personally am skeptical of that. the mayor has a certain
1:57 pm
position of it. these are his own staff. these are paid by him. this is going to be an objective [inaudible]. >> thank you. i have two other speaker cards. henry [speaker not understood]. and dennis marscopian. hi, my name is pat valentino, i live in the south beach neighborhood here as a community volunteer supporting the resolution to study this measure further. i'm very concerned. i read the port's analysis, 23 acres of open space last 00 affordable housing units delayed lost. 4700 potential loss of rental housing without displacement. i'm very confused. why can't we go to the
1:58 pm
departments in the city that understand the effects, get information from them, and disclose that to the public? i'm very confused as to why this is being held up. i think it needs to move forward very quickly. this is extremely important. we're in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. we have people saying there's views -- that they don't get enough views of the bay. these are parks along the waterfront that will be developed under some of the proposed developments. we know there's been some political wrangling. i think it's extremely urgent and necessary to get this information out to the public. i'm very confused why this would be delayed or held up. let's get this done. i support the resolution to have this different department study the initiative and disclose the information to the public so we can all understand what prop b is all about. thank you very much.
1:59 pm
[speaker not understood]. i think if we don't do that, that's another [speaker not understood] providing housing for people and providing more jobs. we have 23 acres. if nothing is going to happen, it's get to sit and get blighted. it would be a great thing for us to be able to develop this. i really urge you to do the analysis and do the right thing so people can really know what's going on. that being said, i hope you will proceed with that and thank you, supervisor wiener, for bringing this forward. thank you, supervisors. hi, supervisors, my name is denis marscopian. i'll be before you in a few minutes for another matter. i just wanted to comment that generally i think most people understand that during the b
2:00 pm
and c campaign this last election where the mayor's office stood, where the planning department stood, where the port stood, and where most of the agencies listed in the resolution stood. i don't think it's any different today. so, it strikes me that -- and based on the testimony of the last two speakers, it really is pretty clear that the point of this is to try and come up with something, enough to dissuade enough voters to say, let's develop -- let's allow developers to exceed the height limits along the waterfront. i don't have any problem with developing along the waterfront as long as it abides with what we have politically agreed to and publicly agreed to, height limits, bulk limits, whatever they are. but this is a different kind of matter and the voter were very clear last year. 2 to 1 they said, no, no, no, don't exceed the height limits, particularly since the bulk of the building is luxury condo stuff. and that luxury condo stuff matches the 153% of market rate


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on